WASHINGTON {AP} When it comes to fighting the government, farmers say they cannot win.

If the Agriculture Department denies subsidies to farmers or punishes them for allegedly breaking rules, the growers can appeal  to committees of fellow farmers in their county and state, and then to a national hearing officer.

Even if the farmers win at every stage, though, the department still can rule against them  and usually does. So lawmakers are moving to tilt the appeals process in favor of farmers.

"It is an absolute joke to call it an appeals service," said L.W. Arbuthnot, a Colorado farmer who has battled the department.

An overhaul of federal farm programs that the House will vote on this fall includes a provision that would force the department to drop cases against farmers whenever the hearing officers rule in favor of the farmers.

The measure could affect the way the department enforces rules intended to protect the environment, as well the billions in subsidies the department dispenses.

"If there's a department in Washington that ought to bend over backward in behalf of producers, it would be USDA," said Rep. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican who sponsored the provision.

At issue is how the director of the department's National Appeals Division, Norman Cooper, ruled on cases that the department's agencies appealed to him.

In 1999, the latest year for which figures were available, Cooper reversed 81 of the 124 decisions that the division's hearing officers had decided in favor of farmers. He upheld 406 of the 440 decisions that hearing officers had rendered in favor of the department.

In 1998, the difference was even more stark. The director affirmed 87 percent of the pro-department decisions and less than 7 percent of the cases won by farmers.

Cooper was not available for comment last week. But the department says the statistics are misleading because the department is more selective about the cases appealed to Cooper than farmers are.

The appeals process "is working as it was designed to," said J. Michael Kelly, the department's acting general counsel. "Farmers are prevailing when their cases have merit, and they are not when they don't."

Cooper is a lawyer; not one of the division's 70 hearing officers is.

Arbuthnot, who farms in the southeastern corner of Colorado, successfully sued the USDA.

Arbuthnot claimed that he was unfairly dropped from the Conservation Reserve Program in 1997 because he relied on incorrect advice from a department employee in filling out his renewal application.

The program, which pays farmers not to plant crops on environmentally sensitive land, is a frequent source of disputes between growers and the department.

State and county committees decided against Arbuthnot. A national hearing officer ruled in his favor, but Cooper overturned that decision.

"It takes a toll financially and mentally and emotionally on farmers," said Justin Cumming, a Denver lawyer who represented Arbuthnot. "It takes some time and money to get through it and it tends to wear people down."